Ryan Dancey on Redefining the Hobby (Updated: time elements in a storytelling game)

[mrswing]

I think the 'adventure game'-description is definitely the best. Storytelling game conjures up images of people sitting around a campfire, taking turns to add new parts to a story. Not everyone can do that or wants to do that.

The primary reason to play any RPG is to have fun - on that, everyone agrees. What constitutes fun is different for almost everyone.

For me, and for most people I played with, playing a game which had the characters as the lead heroes in a strong plot was ultimately most rewarding. The 'trouble' with D&D (or the defining characteristic) is that it basically took a part of LOTR (the mines of moria) and developed that into the archetypal RPG experience: a diverse group enters a 'hole in the ground', discovers all kinds of monstrous enemies, and ends up facing a boss monster/NPC. It's a very limited paradigm on the one hand, on the other it's clear and it allows for an infinite amount of variations in the details. However, as a story experience it is unfulfilling IMHO, especially if it is repeated ad nauseam. As a tactical exercise, it can remain fun, especially due to the enormous number of variables which change every time (monsters, traps, new abilities of PCs, in some cases the backstory to the adventure).

The main hurdle to telling novel- or movielike stories in D&D is the experience mechanism. You have to accumulate a large number of XPs to progress. Therefore, as an adventure designer you are forced to send huge numbers of opponents to be defeated by the PCs, or their progress will be too slow. Most D&D modules contain absurd numbers of opponents (something which was ported to most CRPGs).

On the other hand, where a short story may get away with introducing one monster, and a novel with a handful of weird creatures, monsters lose most of their mystique in D&D because they are basically XP generators. No RAW D&D adventure could get away with introducing only one monster, which has very special powers and/or weaknesses which the characters must discover and exploit. In other fantasy games this would however be a perfectly valid and probably memorable scenario - Fantasy HERO, for example, or even Conan d20 - both games in which the experience factor is handled quite differently, or Warhammer, or BRP. (Conan proposes a very freeform type of XP gain, in which the GM decides after a number of adventures to raise the level of the PCs).

The other big storytelling hurdle, and the one which leads to railroading on both the part of the adventure designer and the DM, is the fact that the protagonists of the tale (PCs) have free will and at times will completely derail the intended plot. Case in point, when I was playing in Shadows over Bögenhaven, as a halfling thief, my character pretended to be a merchant to glean some necessary info. One thing led to another, and before long I was getting ready to open a trading house... great fun, it turned out, but not what the GM and module had in mind (not to mention the rest of the group). So I had to shut the shop down, for the greater good...

Actually, the storytelling aspect of RPGs is best realized in very small groups, ideally one player and one GM. As both are there to have fun, the player will generally be far less inclined to deliberately run off the (more or less) intended track. I've played CN3 like this (using Rolemaster), and it worked a treat, just like several Flashing Blades adventures and - best of all, probably - the James Bond modules for Victory Games (though I played them with a heavily houseruled version of Top Secret 1st. ed.). In these games, the plot was clear, the PC had a natural inclination to follow the trail of the plot, and in general, a great time was had by both.
Changing this to a group experience is not impossible, but far more difficult. And it may definitely conflict with the concept of fun of many gamers (especially those who love the entire D&D paradigm as is).

 

[pawsplay]

On the other hand, where a short story may get away with introducing one monster, and a novel with a handful of weird creatures, monsters lose most of their mystique in D&D because they are basically XP generators. No RAW D&D adventure could get away with introducing only one monster, which has very special powers and/or weaknesses which the characters must discover and exploit.

Why not? As long as it's a high CR or there are lots of it, this presents no problem at all. Plus there are ad hoc awards, which are by the RAW part of the experience system.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Spells are supposed to have colorful names, be quirky to deal with, and rather flamboyant.

And rules are not.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

As we can see on this thread, suggesting that D&D players think about stories causes quite a few of them to freak the hell out.

Or we've been meaningless participants in enough games that are essentially "drama queen's story hour". Or played through pretty much any 2nd edition module, where all you did was basically click "turn the page" and roll a die now and then.

DM: "The soldier lasy dying and asks you to come closer to impart some last words"
Player: "I cast Heal on him"
DM: "... It doesnt work. Look, my story says he dies giving you some vague clues, and thats whats going to happen!"
Player "Wake me when I matter"

Hell, I've seen DM's people here seem to respect on this forum advocate this exact same crap because it might wreck their precious plot.

Its one thing to walk into an adventure with a vague outline, its another thing to walk in with a polished "story" because the latter presumes you know PC actions. Hell, in many ways, its far more "video gamey", where your character stands around like a moron in a cut scene whil;e the BBEG waltzes off with the widget of doom or whatever.

 

[RFisher]

You know what game my seven-year-old is most interested in right now? Marbles. Actual "draw a circle on the ground & flick glass balls around" marbles. Sure, he enjoys his Star Wars: Battlefront, Lego Star Wars, &c.; but he'll drop those in a second to play marbles.

So the idea that video games will ever make anything obsolete is laughable to me.

Not that these aren't important topics, just that that puts it all in perspective for me.

Don't shy away from it being a geeky thing, because these days, being a geek is almost a badge of honor.

The truth is that nigh everyone realizes they are some form of geek. Poker geek. Garden geek. Music geek. Movie geek. Whatever.

Sometimes we give lip-service to geek stereotypes for fun, but it's just talk. We don't really mean it.

The very few people who really believe "geek" is a negative are the real geeks & not even worth wasting another word on.

Or they're still in middle-school. Just smile knowingly until they graduate. (^_^)

If you don't believe me, start telling people you're a gamer. Ask about their hobbies, & notice that you don't deride them for that. Tell them about your hobby, & notice that--not only do they seldom have a negative reaction--a good number of them will actually be interested to know more about it.

I don't see how the [cinema] theater industry is a sustainable model. It seems to be, but I can't see it lasting forever, honestly. How can it?

The traditional model isn't. The way most theatres are evolving isn't either.

Companies like the Alamo Drafthouse here in Austin (& beyond now) are reinventing movie theatres in ways that can survive, however. Instead of keeping the same snacks & raising the prices, they actually serve food & drink that is worth the price. Instead of treating you as merely eyes they can sell to advertisers, they create events that celebrate film & provide entertainment beyond what's on the screen.

They aren't the only one, & you're going to see more & more of this.

The striking thing to me is how obvious Alamo's moves seem. Especially when compared to what the others are doing. But I guess that's often the hallmark of genius: It leaves you wondering why you didn't think of it yourself.

Yeah. I see your point. But to be honest... D&D has the product for beginners. D&D Basic set Which would do the job nicely in 4 hours, I belive. The problem is, when you or anybody decide to begin with the game, he will not be offered this (in most cases) but PHB instead.

That is a problem.

The other problem is that the introductory sets don't seem to introduce the game I want to introduce people to. It's something vaguely similar, but--for me--it misses the mark. My old Basic Set & Prince Valiant have been my choices for this task. Even Dungeon Squad looks like it would do it better to me. (In fact, it was created when the author's attempt to introduce people to the hobby via 3e failed.)

I'd rather have a rule for everything and then cut out what I don't like rather than have a lack of rules and then have to make them up on the spot as I go.

<shrug> I'd rather not have to waste time weeding out a bunch of (for me) useless rules. (Because there's an awful lot I want to handle with quick ad hoc rulings rather than using a rule, whether made up in advance by someone else or made up by me on the spot.)

Pohtaytoh, pahtahtoh.

Actually the only "necessary rules" are those presented in the PHB.

Which is still too much for many people. Which wouldn't bother me so much if D&D weren't the flagship of the industry.

DM consistency is a tough issue to tackle

No it's not. It just takes the players realizing that the DM is human & that--while that has its advantages--they have to give him some slack due to its disadvantages. They have to extend him the benefit of the doubt that taking on a tough job for their sakes deserves. It just takes the DM being willing to listen to the players & fairly consider their input. It's that easy.

We obviously have different views of very basic things. Yet both of us are attracted to RPGs.

Right. Ideally the flagship RPG would be a decent gateway into the hobby for as wide a group of potential gamers as possible.

But, it can't be a "designed by committee" "try to be all things to all people" kind of thing either. It has to have enough focus to remain compelling. A gateway that the widest number of potential gamers can most easily pass through, but once through they'll find other games that expand the experience in the way that fits them.

That, I think, is a tall order.

The big % of the problems in RPG are bad DMs.

I don't think that's true. I think "bad DM" isn't really as common as it is made out to be. I think the "bad DM" fairly quickly drops out or learns to be an "adequate DM".

My own research into the mechanics of spells leads me to believe that 75-90% of the spells could be condensed into one or two dozen spell templates.

I kind of had the impression that the 3e designers had actually done that. Then they just rebuilt most of the spells from those templates. Maybe not entirely formally, but effectively.

That's probably another one of those "I'd like 3e more if it weren't trying so hard to be D&D" things. I liked the spells in earlier editions that didn't fit to templates. I don't like that 3e regularized things so much, but didn't just give me the templates.

 

[buzz]

Well let's pretend, that you are right, and these games have those 2%.

I'm just going by the numbers Ken Hite produces each year.

Now compare that with those indie games... best one has sold how much? How many players acutally play those games? That is completely different league...

The best ones have sold in the thousands. The bigger point, though is that, as a community, it's not an insignificant number, and it's growing. It's also a very active, vocal community focused on pushing design forward and getting people to game. I think it's also telling that it's indie publishers who have won the Origins RPG award the last two years, not to mention finding more and more spots in the Ennies each year.

As somebody already point out, the visitors of gamecon are not a good sample of the gamers out there.
...
Are you sure, that common gamers visit cons? For what purpose?

I find it kind of bizarre that both you and Glyfair are trying to basically make the argument that cons in general, and GenCon (the signature con of the hobby) in particular, are in no way representative of the hobby. If GenCon was only for die-hard gamers with, apparently, no ability to tell good from crap, why do so many publishers make such a big deal about it?

And it's not that the indie folk are going to cons, it's that they're creating cons. These folk are really focused on getting people together and actually playing. I think that's awesome.

As far as I understand Ryan Dancey, he is speaking about rebirth of the hobby. Anything less would miss the point. So the comparison is important. Indie revolution is very small scale, very local and globaly unsuccesful. That would not save the industry. I am sorry...[/quote]
No, he's talking about competing with WoW. Judging any effort a failure because it doesn't duplicate the boom of the hobby's creation is like judging a 2007 dot-com startup by the standards of 1998.

Also imagine, that you would want to do those "one-man" publishing for like thousands or tens of thousands people. That would require different approach which I am worried the indies are not prepared to. They still sell in hundreds at the very best, which could be managed. That is not a model that can simply be just made larger.

Admittedly, it's not necessarily a model for a WotC-sized operation. Then again, given that both WotC and WW ended up being purchased by a larger, non-RPG corporation in order to survive, it may be that their model isn't a sustainable one that should be duplicated.

Anyway, we're derailing this thread somewhat.

Regardless, my point was not that the indie method is an industry cure-all. I was more pointing to them already pursuing the "story focused" design goal Ryan was talking about. I also think they're taking a novel approach to the hobby, and their efforts should not be ignored.

 

[WayneLigon]

Just saying that WW's storyteller system, well, wasn't a system that--from a systems/mechanic standpoint--did all that much to encourage or enable storytelling.

I don't think a system, by itself, can do that. Really, it just illustrates that people can play Vampire just as badly as they can D&D.

 

[KenSeg]

I think the virtual tabletop gaming option is one that should be explored by WOTC. After several years of reading threads here and elsewhere, one of the most common comments is that a group dissolved when one member had to move or some other similar disruptive event. Virtual tabletop gaming would solve this in part in that you could continue to game with friends regardless of distance. I know I would love to get together and throw the bones again with my old high school friends (Ernie, Jim, Kyle, etc...). My current group is made up of two married couples that have gamed together for 20 years now. If one of us had to move due to work, it would enable us to continue our gaming together and you could add players without the barriers of location/isolated communities/etc.

-KenSeg
gaming since 1978

 

[der_kluge]

This is what I got out of Ryan's last entry...

The model he describes very much sounds like Round-Robin GM'ing, which I've advocated for years on these very boards. I was even planning on running a couple of sessions of it at Gen Con this year, but chose not to go at the last minute...


Anyway, RR GM'ing is essentially a game whereby everyone takes turns GM'ing, and continues the "story" from the last GM. At first, someone has to create the story out of nothing, and that's the hardest part - but when pressed to be creative on the spot, people usually turn up pretty good stuff.

These games almost always tell a story. I've ran this scenario many times over, and while it's completely different every time, the basic format remains the same - It almost always manages to fit into a 4-hour slot - you get plot development, introduction of a MacGuffin (not always, but most of the time), introduction of a villain, some combat, and a final showdown, and resolution. It's amazing how it manages to just work itself out that way. The games are extremely free form and almost paint Impressionistic-level paintings with wide brush strokes of narrative across a huge swath of campaign. But they're always fun and always interesting.

Even at it's best, a regular game of D&D hardly comes close, actually, because the "story" is gestalt - greater than the sum of its parts, contributed by more than one person, with twists and turns the original author couldn't possibly dream up.

The biggest problem with Round-Robin GM'ing is that everyone at the table has to be comfortable GM'ing. Not everyone is, and the better the GM, the better this game becomes. I've ran this at Gen Con with ENWorld folks whom I consider to be excellent GMs, and it turns out superb.

CAPES! is another game which sort of utilizes the same model - each player sort of takes turning dictating how the story turns out. The rules are very broad - you resolve an entire scene with the dice (I think they're are dice; I've only played it once) or by raising the stakes against those who oppose the resolution of the scene in the same manner in which you wish it to occur. In D&D, this would be sort of like saying, "I walk into the room and kill everything" and the DM says, "Ok, roll the dice". In such a system, armor class and hit points are more or less meaningless minute details that only seek to complicate the game. Personality and story are very much in tact - role-playing does not have to be discarded. But the minutia of the game (which I suspect many people find enjoyable) is painted over in broad strokes. Attacks of Opportunity are replaced with broad decision trees regarding how and where the party wishes to go and what they do. The game is fundamentally changed on many levels if you go to that extreme.

I believe what Dancey is advocated is more a round-robin approach. In Round-Robin, the current GM plays the roles of the monsters and NPCs, and his own PC becomes an NPC for the duration of GM'ing.

For Round-Robin to be successful, though, the game has to play fast - very fast, like C&C or 1e fast. 3rd edition is much slower; chargen takes longer. I don't much care for C&C, but I've often felt like it would be the perfect vehicle for Round-Robin because combat is much faster, and chargen is a snap. With this game, pace and speed is crucial.

Anyway, I've blathered on enough. Those are my thoughts.

 

[Delta]

I bet I could lift this quote and place it back before the advent of 3e.

Good design trumps sacred cows. Every time. Sacred cows are only relevant to existing gamers, and the existing gamers aren't enough to make RPGs "successful." That's the point of the whole thread.

Final nail in the coffin for you? Maybe. Sorry to see you go, but the industry has to be ready to churn you eventually.

The "Lite Edition" only has to replace you with one new gamer to hold the status quo.

You're betting that such a change would drive away more players than it attracts. I'd happily bet against you.

Frankly this has nothing to do with 3E, or my own purchasing habits, or sacred cows, or a Lite Edition, or any of those things.

Making D&D get a whole dimension more abstract will make it even less interesting to new players. If the options are (a) making spells & monsters specific & visceral and easily pictured, vs. (b) making spells & monsters abstract templates that players have to translate into specific in-game uses, then yes, I'll happily bet that (a) draws in more players.

Making this proposed abstraction wouldn't make D&D simpler (although it would make it shorter), it would make it more complicated, since it would be making more work for actual players. It would simultaneously be flushing out the campaign flavor that draws people into the game in the first place.

Did the Epic spell system not serve as a sufficient attempt at this already?